Re: [Harp-L] Three Standard Embouchures

[Winslow Yerxa <winslowyerxa@xxxxxxxxx>]

SPAH does not make rules about what harmonica players call stuff. One solitary person made the suggestion that SPAH do so.

I personally - as WInslow Yerxa, harmonica player, not as president of SPAH - do get involved in discussions of terminology. I agree that usage determines usage. That said, usage can be influenced, hopefully in the direction of clarity.

Winslow
 
Winslow Yerxa
President, SPAH, the Society for the Preservation and Advancement of the Harmonica
Producer, the Harmonica Collective
Author, Harmonica For Dummies, ISBN 978-0-470-33729-5
            Harmonica Basics For Dummies, ASIN B005KIYPFS
            Blues Harmonica For Dummies, ISBN 978-1-1182-5269-7
Resident Expert, bluesharmonica.com
Instructor, Jazzschool Community Music School


________________________________
 From: Harp Explorer <harpexplorer1@xxxxxxxxx>
To: harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx 
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2014 11:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Harp-L] Three Standard Embouchures
 



I'm also not sure if it's being suggested that SPAH should now start ruling
on what is considered to be "official," as opposed to promoting all the
cultures of harmonica. If it's about defining "official," and about getting
ornery with teachers and players who don't get with the "official" program
(otherwise, why suggest that something be adopted across the board?)... is
that really part of SPAH's mission? Or just an idea from a few folks?

BTW... Am I the only one who thinks it's amusing to read a discussion about
what should be proper terminology occurring on a list about harmonica, but
actually named for a stringed instrument? Multiple slang names for the same
thing, and yet wanting to call two different techniques by the same name,
seems misguided to me....





On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Larry Marks <larry.marks@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> I am delighted we are having this discussion. I  love the 10 hole diatonic
> harmonica. I play other instruments, but I simply do not get the pleasure
> out of them that I can get out of my humble 10 hole diatonics. The reason
> is that with their small form factor and weak-ass reeds, they are extremely
> responsive to changes in embouchure.
>
> My trombone and my chromatic harmonica are also affected by my embouchure,
> but they have strong personalities of their own. My little 10 hole diatonic
> readily displays the personality I want it to have. (My piano doesn't care
> about my embouchure at all!)
>
> I care little about equipment other than my mike (plug for Greg Heumann).
> My sound comes from my embouchure.
>
> Now, some responses:
>
> Thank you, Rick for appreciating the "reverse bend" terminology. I do not
> understand why a bend that makes the reed pop away from the slot is not the
> reverse of all the other ways in which the instrument sounds, all of which
> have the reed in the slot. But, I think I will let this subject blow over.
>
> Actually, Mike, I don't use pucker at all. I have no need for it. I do not
> say that with pejorative intent. There are many good - even great - players
> who use pucker to some degree. I don't.
>
> I understand the logic behind the classification that Winslow and Michael
> are making; and yet, it is difficult for me to call an embouchure using a
> curled tongue by the same name as the flat, relaxed-tongue technique I use.
> When I switch from playing a single tone or adjacent tones by u-blocking to
> playing non-adjacent tones by tongue blocking, all I do is tighten my
> tongue slightly. I am using my tongue to block holes in both cases.
> Notwithstanding, I defer.
>
> I also appreciate Phil's comments. I have long distinguished between
> double-reed (ordinary blues) bends and single-reed (reverse and valved)
> bends. I note that the participation of both reeds in the hole provides a
> tonal richness that is difficult to achieve with single-reed bends.
>
> Full disclosure: I sometimes play with a modeling pedal (plug for Richard
> Hunter.) for which embouchure is far less important.
>
>   -LM
>